Writing For Biotech Industry

Corporate posts rarely work in biotech. Here's why you should involve your CEO instead: First, a quick review of why corporate posts (especially on Linkedin) don’t work: 1. The Linkedin algorithm represses corporate posts Personal account posts are preferred. Company reach outside the organization? Less than 20% of what a personal post can. Bad return on investment. 2. Scientists don’t trust company pages You’re not selling to the general population. You’re selling science to some of the most intelligent and skeptical people on the planet. They engage with the opinions and findings of trusted peers and peer-reviewed information. A company page can (almost) never be that trusted source. It’s too biased. 3. The content is boring and self-serving Sorry. It needs to be said. Most posts fall into these categories: - Learn about how WE are awesome! - Come meet US at a conference! - Go view OUR webinar! - GIMME your email! - Visit the website! The underlying message? Give something I haven’t earned so I can take advantage of you. No one is interested in that. So what should you do instead? Understand the reality: People don’t trust companies. People trust people. Therefore: You need a trusted face to represent your company on Linkedin. Someone who has deep industry knowledge. Someone who knows your company inside and out. Someone who can provide valuable insights to target customers. Someone who has a vested interest in long-term company success. Typically, this is an executive or founder. What then? Invest time and effort into building a personal brand for that person. A brand that leads with value and insightful information. Deliver deep industry knowledge that’s worth its weight in gold. Talk about industry pain points - then solve them. Weigh in on how industry will change in 5 years. Provide helpful insight on industry trends. Become the voice that people look to. Build trust and authority. Just… be useful. Make it a no-brainer for your target customer to follow you. Earn their attention and respect. Therefore, when you do talk about the problems your company can solve for them… They’ll believe you. You’ll be top of mind for that problem. Because you’ve proved your trustworthiness. And by extension, they’ll trust your company too. A great example of this? Steve Harvey, CEO of Camena Bioscience. You've probably seen his posts. Absolutely crushing it. His brand drives significant traffic (and legitimate interest) towards his company. So remember… Personal trumps corporate. It takes time to be useful. But it’s completely worth it. What are your thoughts on this? Drop them in the comments. #biotechnology #marketing #cellandgenetherapy #innovation

The Communication Skills That Actually Accelerate Bioinformatics Careers Technical excellence gets you in the door. Communication skills get you promoted. I have been watching this pattern for years now. The bioinformaticians who advance fastest are not necessarily the most brilliant programmers or the deepest domain experts. They are the ones who can translate complex computational insights into language that biologists, clinicians, and business stakeholders actually understand. Modern bioinformatics requires constant collaboration with biologists, computer scientists, statisticians, and healthcare professionals. Field professionals must be able to collaborate effectively with biologists, computer scientists, statisticians, and healthcare professionals. It requires technical skills and strong communication abilities to ensure that ideas and findings are clearly understood across disciplines. What I find interesting is that this skill becomes more valuable as AI tools democratize technical knowledge. (Almost) anyone can run a (basic) genomic analysis pipeline now. But explaining why that analysis matters, what the limitations are, and how the results should influence clinical decisions - that requires human judgment and communication skills that AI cannot replicate. So try to position yourself as "bioinformatics translator" who can bridge the gap between computational insights and biological questions. Employers seek professionals who can navigate high-performance computing systems or cloud platforms like AWS and bridge communication gaps between biology and IT teams. They are not just generating results - they are making those results actionable for their colleagues. This shows up in unexpected ways. The ability to write clear documentation becomes a competitive advantage when your pipelines need to be used by other team members. Being able to explain abstract concepts in simple terms makes you invaluable in cross-functional meetings. Knowing how to present data visualizations that tell a story rather than just displaying numbers sets you apart from peers who focus purely on technical implementation. Companies are desperate for people who can combine biological knowledge with engineering discipline, but they are equally desperate for people who can communicate that combination effectively to diverse stakeholders. The technical skills get you qualified for the role. The communication skills determine how far you go in it. In a field where interdisciplinary collaboration is essential, the professionals who master both the science and the storytelling are the ones building careers that scale. #Bioinformatics #CareerDevelopment #Communication #InterdisciplinarySkills #ProfessionalGrowth

Most biotech founders don’t fail because their ideas are bad. They fail because their messaging never stood a chance. Not because they didn’t “communicate benefits” clearly. They wrote posts that ignored how people think. As a founder, you’re used to facts, logic, and evidence. But your audience doesn’t read your LinkedIn post like a peer-reviewed paper. They skim. → They filter. → They fill in the blanks. → Then they forget. The Cognitive Bias Codex is one of the best tools I’ve found for writing posts that work with these patterns, rather than against them. Here’s how to apply it: 1️⃣ Catch attention (Too much info): People are overloaded. You need contrast. → Use the bizarreness effect. Start with something unexpected. → Use the Von Restorff effect. Make one idea visually or conceptually stand out. → Use confirmation bias. Start with what your audience believes, then challenge it. 💡 Instead of “Our study shows a 12% increase,” try: “Most device teams think 40% uptake is the limit. Ours hit 52%.” 2️⃣ Build trust (Not enough meaning): People fill gaps with stories. Give them the right one. → Use the narrative bias. Share a decision, failure, or conversation. → Use the halo effect. Mention credible names or data sources. → Break stereotypes. Show something they didn’t expect. 💡 “We thought this device wouldn’t work in elderly patients. It did.” 3️⃣ Prompt action (Need to act fast): Your reader is scrolling. You need to interrupt the autopilot. → Use loss aversion. Show the cost of ignoring your insight. → Use the sunk cost fallacy. Highlight why clinging to outdated methods hurts. → Use the availability heuristic. Reference a recent news item or post. 💡 “Still relying on 2022 data to plan your 2025 trial?” 4️⃣ Boost recall (What do we remember?): You don’t need to be memorable to everyone. Just to the right people. → Use the peak-end rule. Start strong. End clear. → Repeat key phrases. → Tell stories where the smart choice looks obvious in hindsight. 💡 “We bet on the unpopular strategy. It paid off in 3 months.” Most content tries to sound smart. The best content works with how people think. 👉 Which part of the Codex feels most relevant to your work right now? 💬 Let's discuss in the comments. ♻️ Repost for others. ---- 👋 Hi, I'm Sébastien, Founder of Mywebtechcare®. I help life science founders grow visibility, trust, and long-term opportunities on LinkedIn.

I was talking with a senior director of communications last week about how she measures whether messaging actually works. Her answer surprised me: "I don't care if it sounded good in the meeting. I care if people can repeat it a week later." She'd just been through a product launch where the team spent weeks aligning on the narrative. The positioning was sharp. The science story was clear. Everyone nodded and said it made sense. Then she went out and talked to people across the company. Half of them couldn't explain the mechanism of action. The other half were using different language to describe the same thing. The message hadn't pulled through. That's when she realized the problem wasn't the message. It was that no one had tested whether people could actually repeat it. Now she does spot checks after every major rollout. She asks colleagues to explain the message back to her in their own words. She listens to how employees describe the company to candidates. She pays attention to what people say when they think no one's listening. If the message isn't landing consistently, she goes back and simplifies it. The people who do this well don't just craft messages. They test whether those messages survive contact with the organization. Narrative success isn't about what got said in the meeting. It's about what people are saying three levels down, a month later, when no one's watching.   What's one way you test whether your messages are actually sticking? And what do you do when you realize they're not? #CorporateAffairs #Communications #Biotech

The biotech industry burns over a million hours of senior talent in board meetings every year. Much of it unnecessarily. We imported our governance playbook from Fortune 500 companies. But a development-stage biotech is not Disney. The entire strategy can be visualized on one slide. So why are we running 4h+ meetings? I wrote a piece on what the best biotech boards are actually doing differently. A few of the core ideas: Every board deck should open with a Core Value Proposition, a single statement of what the company promised investors it would accomplish before needing to raise again. All news is benchmarked against the CVP. Manufacturing delay? Will it impair the CVP? If no, then it’s minor. If we can’t deliver promised data before the next financing, it’s major. Most board decks don’t have a CVP, leaving strategic discussions without a key guidepost. Every deck needs an Elephant Slide, which is a single chart showing your cash curve, burn projections, and every major milestone for the next 3+ years. It’s everything you need to realize that your cash runway is too short or that next financing must be larger than you thought. Every slide should have a BLATT (Bottom Line At The Top). The header is the conclusion, not merely a descriptor. Don’t say “manufacturing update”. Say “minor manufacturing delay won’t prevent us from starting our trial”. If a director can’t digest key points of your pre-read in ~10 minutes, odds are they could be clearer and writen more plainly. Management should send short updates between meetings (aka “love notes”) so that little in the pre-read is ever a surprise. Goal is for directors to be able to jump into discussion w/o sitting through presentation of the board deck. Executive session should go first, not last. It’s the most important conversation of the day. Burying it after four hours of presentations when everyone is spent is governance malpractice. The article also includes a taxonomy of directors that I think the industry has never properly made, and it matters, because different directors have fundamentally different superpowers, constraints, and best uses. There are key differences between active investor directors and other directors, including legacy investors, that should impact how directors assigns sub-committees (particularly comp and audit). I get into that in the article. This article also include a Claude agent you can spin up to walk you through board prep. The companion SABER deck has templates and detailed guidelines. These principles are already standard for some boards (eg all the ones I’m on! Thank you!). You’ll see in the article that my motion to adopt these broadly has been seconded by many other executives and directors. The more companies that do, the more effective our boards can be, incidentally freeing up a lot of time for our industry’s most seasoned people. https://lnkd.in/ebuYpad3 RA Capital Management

The communication mistake biostatisticians make is using the same approach with every client. Some clients want directness. Cut straight to the recommendation. Give conclusions first, details only if asked. Respect their time. Other clients need to process out loud. They think through options verbally before landing on decisions. Give them space to talk. Let them arrive at understanding through conversation. Some clients have deep technical knowledge and want detailed methodology discussions. Skip the basics. Engage at their level. Be ready to defend your approach with solid reasoning. Other clients need education alongside recommendations. Start with fundamentals. Use plain language and analogies. Check for understanding rather than assuming they're following. Your job is reading which type you're working with and adapting. Pay attention in early interactions. Notice whether they interrupt with direct questions or let you finish. See if they ask technical details or big picture questions. When you match your communication style to theirs, projects move faster because communication flows naturally. They trust you more because they feel understood. Happy Client Communication, Happy Tuesday.

Ph.D. scholars and researchers, are your research papers structured to make an impact? Before submitting, consider: 🔍 Does each section serve its purpose? 🧭 Is your work discoverable, readable, and relevant? 📊 Can others replicate and build on your findings? Let's explore a breakdown of each core section in a research paper covering the what, why, and how. You can use this framework to refine your draft or build a stronger manuscript from scratch. 🔷 1. Title - Your first impression on readers and databases. - Be clear, keyword-rich, and avoid jargon. Stay within 12–15 words. 🔷 2. Abstract - A 150–250 word summary: background, aim, methods, results, conclusion. - Write it last, place it first. Ensure it offers quick relevance to readers. 🔷 3. Keywords - Improve discoverability with 4–6 well-chosen terms beyond the title. - Reflect your study's domain, methods, or variables. 🔷 4. Introduction - Set the stage: context, problem, literature gap, research question. - Start broad, narrow to the objective or hypothesis. 🔷 5. Methods - Detail your approach to ensure reproducibility. - Include design, sampling, tools, and data analysis. 🔷 6. Results - Report findings factually using text, tables, and visuals. - Focus on trends, data patterns, and measurable outcomes. 🔷 7. Discussion - Interpret results, compare them with literature, note limitations, and suggest next steps. - Show the significance of your findings in the broader field. 🔷 8. Conclusion - Summarize your main findings and their implications. -Restate objectives, contributions, and future directions. 🔷 9. References - Back your work with accurate, properly formatted citations. - Match all in-text references with a complete list. 🔷 10. Figures and Tables - Use visuals to enhance clarity and engagement. - Label, make them self-contained, and reference them in the text. 🔷 11. Acknowledgements (Optional) - Recognize non-author contributions. - Promote transparency and academic courtesy. 🔷 12. Author Contributions (Optional) - Define specific author roles using a contributor taxonomy. - Enhances accountability and clarity. 🔷 13. Conflict of Interest / Funding Disclosure - Declare financial support and potential biases. - Uphold transparency and ethical standards. 🎁 Bonus takeaway: Tools like AnswerThis can streamline your literature review and help in your first draft, saving time and improving accuracy. 💬 Comment: Which section is most challenging to write: abstract, methods, or discussion? Let's share our tips and support each other's writing journey 👇 #ResearchMadeEasy #LiteratureReview #PaperPublication #Research #AnswerThis

𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐄𝐎𝐬 𝐖𝐢𝐧: 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐥𝐝 Years ago, I worked with a company that proudly described itself as a “big family.” They collected Best Place to Work awards 🏆, the website was glowing. the employer branding was flawless. Then you scratched the surface. Beneath a very thin layer of veneer, everything was scripted. Every town hall answer. Every internal memo. Every external statement. Corporate communication was sterile to the Nth degree! Having a personality was perceived as a liability. Individual voice was quietly sanded down. The result? Executives who looked impeccable. Spoke in perfect paragraphs. And were about as inspiring as an instruction manual for office carpet maintenance. Corporate robots. Slick as an eel. Memorable as beige wallpaper. Fast forward to today: Imperfect communication wins! Leaders with edges, with asperity, with a point of view, are the ones we remember ... here is my 𝐮𝐧𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭: Philipp Baaske, NanoTemper Technologies, "The HONORABLE ENTREPRENEUR" communicates with technical clarity and unmistakable personality, talks about his mistakes Stef van Grieken, building Cradle in real time, and sharing his unfiltered experience (#StartUpLife ≠ Google) Jason Kelly, Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc. explains complex science in a way that feels accessible and human; really steped-up his short videos lately Alex Zhavoronkov, always with strong opinions, and scientific reason to believe why Insilico Medicine is leading the TechBio race Thomas Clozel, blends medical credibility, AI ambition, and strategic storytelling to position OWKIN at the forefront of data-driven biotech. Najat Khan, PhD, Recursion has mastered the art of explaining AI, drug development, and transformation with depth and authenticity. Her podcast appearances are genuinely worth studying. In large pharma, where constraints are heavier: Vas Narasimhan, Novartis and Dave Ricks, Eli Lilly and Company manage to combine institutional responsibility with visible, genuine leadership. Not a CEO, yet another role model: Marco Andre, VP of AI Literacy at Johnson & Johnson, pioneered a form of communication that is direct, not over-polished, sometimes imperfect, and incredibly memorable. On platforms like LinkedIn, posts from individuals outperform company pages by orders of magnitude. When executives communicate frequently in their own voice, they create trust scales, accelerate the narrative, and position themselves as KOL In an AI-saturated world where polished content can be generated endlessly, personality becomes scarce. Scarcity creates differentiation. Today, being genuine is a competitive advantage. The companies that understand this will not hide their leaders behind scripted perfection. They will let them speak.

5 journal rejections taught me one lesson about research papers. This is how to fix yours: The feedback was brutal: "Lacks structure and clarity." Back in my PhD days I thought good research was enough. I was wrong. I spent 18 months collecting data. Ran every analysis perfectly. Had findings that could change my field. But my paper kept getting rejected. After rejection 5, I almost gave up. Then a senior colleague read my draft. She finished and said: "Your research is solid. Your structure is chaos." She drew something on the whiteboard that changed everything. A simple body diagram. Each section of a research paper mapped to a body part. Each part answers one specific question. Here's what she taught me: Abstract (The Head) This is your 30-second elevator pitch. What's the problem? What did you find? Why does it matter? Introduction (The Neck) What is known? Set up our world understanding. Hook readers with relevance. Make them care. Literature Review (The Shoulders) What is unknown? What gap are you filling? Show you understand the conversation. Methodology (The Arms) How should we fill the gap? What did you do? Make it so clear others can replicate. Results (The Torso) What findings did you get? Present data without interpretation. Clean and focused. Discussion (The Hips) How do the findings bridge the gap? Connect your results to the bigger picture. Conclusion (The Legs) What does this mean going forward? Future directions. Leave readers wanting more. References (The Feet) Honor the giants you stand on. Show the depth of your research journey. She said: "Each section answers ONE question. Answer it clearly. Move on." I rewrote my paper using her framework. Same data. Same findings. Different structure. Submitted to the same journal that rejected me twice. Accepted with minor revisions. Reviewer comment: "Well-structured and clear presentation." The difference was not my research. The difference was my structure. Since then: My next 3 papers accepted on first submission I now teach this framework to every PhD student I supervise The mistake most researchers make: They think great data makes great papers. Actually, great structure makes great papers. Your research deserves to be read. But first it needs to be structured so readers can follow. The visual shows the complete anatomy I now use. One body. Eight sections. Eight questions answered. I wish someone had drawn this for me on day one. Would have saved me 5 rejections and 2 years. What section of research paper writing challenges you most right now? Abstract? Literature review? Discussion? Drop it below. I'll share specific tips for that section. #AcademicWriting #ResearchPaper #PhDLife #AcademicPublishing #PhDSuccess

When people struggle to understand your words, they assume the problem is you. Not them. You might think complexity makes you sound smarter. It feels necessary. After all, you work in biotech. Precision matters. Accuracy is everything. But research from Princeton professor Daniel Oppenheimer says otherwise. He found something surprising: The more needlessly complex you are, the less intelligent people think you are. You don’t have to dumb things down. You just have to make them clear. Here’s how: 1. Use short sentences. Say what you need to say, then stop. 2. Choose common words. If a seventh grader wouldn’t understand it, reconsider. 3. Explain acronyms. Someone in your audience doesn't know what it means. It takes seconds to tell them. 4. Speak to help, not to impress. Being helpful makes it about them, being impressive makes it about you. 5. Test your message. If someone outside your field doesn’t get it, try again. Because being clear doesn’t mean being simplistic. It means being heard. And in biotech, being heard is how you make an impact.